scf_get_evidence_assessment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an AI assessment with status, implying potential asynchronicity, and specifies audit metadata. This is sufficient for a read-only operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence plus a short polling instruction, with no fluff. Every part adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the return value sufficiently for a read tool, given no output schema. It mentions polling after trigger, but could include more on error states or what to do if not ready. Overall adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions linking to other tools. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves the AI assessment for an evidence file, listing specific output components (status, relevance score, structured findings, summary, audit metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like scf_get_evidence_assessment_summary by offering the full assessment and implies polling after trigger.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises to poll after scf_trigger_evidence_assessment, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like the summary tool, but the polling instruction is effective.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.